Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. The government claims its proposed Energy Efficient Homes program will reduce cumulative greenhouse emissions by up to 49.4 million tonnes by 2020. What is the government’s estimate of the carbon dioxide that will be emitted in the manufacture and distribution of the insulation required for the 2.2 million homes targeted under the government’s program?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the Liberal Party, who do not want action taken on climate change—some of them do and some of them do not—are asking a question about energy efficiency, when I understood that that was one of the things they wanted to do because they are not sure whether they will get the National Party or some of their own members of the Liberal Party to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It seems extraordinary that there is some criticism from those on the other side on energy efficiency matters. That is what you were talking about: the solution to climate change. You knew it was easier to talk about that than about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, because you are completely divided on that issue. The reality is that that assessment is made on the basis of the reduction in energy consumption that the government projects will be a consequence of insulation in in excess of two million Australian homes.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It is difficult to hear the Senator Wong when others are interjecting.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise in a point of order. Perhaps the minister simply did not understand the question. I will repeat the crux of the question: what is the government’s estimate of the carbon dioxide that will be emitted in the manufacture and distribution of the insulation required for the 2.2 million homes targeted under the government’s program? The reason I have repeated the question is that clearly she was nowhere near any of that information. I am simply giving her the benefit of that. She may not have heard the question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, there is 56 seconds left in which to answer the question. I draw your attention to the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, I did hear the question. I am aware of the fact that insulation does reduce energy consumption and, therefore, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of production and so forth, the best way to reduce emissions from those sorts of industrial processes is if the coalition deal with their internal differences and support a market based mechanism such as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which will reduce Australia’s emissions in those covered sectors in the cheapest way possible.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order relating to the requirement for the minister to be directly relevant. Question time is rapidly descending into an absolute waste of time. If ministers are asked a specific question about a topic that they should be right across, and having been obviously subject to some decisions in cabinet where this would have been specifically looked at, it is reasonable to ask the minister for what the government’s estimate is of carbon dioxide that would be emitted in the manufacture and distribution of the insulation that forms part of the package. The minister should be required to be directly relevant. We would certainly ask that you remind her that she has not addressed the question that has been put in a perfectly reasonable and straightforward way.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the minister that she has 18 seconds in which to answer the question that was asked by Senator Scullion.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the government has estimated an amount that we believe will be reduced in terms of Australia’s emissions as a result of this energy efficiency measure. In terms of the improvement of the carbon pollution of various industrial processes, such as the manufacture of insulation bats, the best way of dealing with that— (Time expired)

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is clear that the minister does not know the answer to my first question. Could she take this opportunity to take that on notice. Would she also be able to undertake to provide an answer to the Senate before demanding the passage of this legislation?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be honest, I am not sure why the opposition would want that, given they have already decided to oppose this package.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a bit miffed about the exact answer to the question—whether or not—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, you can ask a further question.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Further to undertaking to take the previous question on notice, will the minister now undertake to table the modelling from which the 49.4 million tonne calculation has been derived? If she is shaking her head, the rationale for the question is that I think the Senate cannot be expected to approve such significant expenditure if it is clear that there has not been even the slightest rigorous debate of the merits or otherwise of this package, even at cabinet level.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I had a little more time, I could provide some indication of the take-up and the estimates which underpin this. I understood the opposition had referred these matters to a committee, and I am sure those matters will be properly canvassed there.